ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2021
Differences in the efficacy and safety of eribulin in patients with soft tissue sarcoma by histological subtype and treatment line.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eribulin in Patients with Liposarcoma and Leiomyosarcoma: A Retrospective Single-Center Experience.Oncology · 2023Article
- Safety and effectiveness of eribulin in Japanese patients with soft tissue sarcoma including rare subtypes: a post-marketing observational study.BMC cancer · 2022Observational
- Marine-Derived Secondary Metabolites as Promising Epigenetic Bio-Compounds for Anticancer Therapy.Marine drugs · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical evidence regarding eribulin treatment for patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) is limited to those with L-sarcoma (leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma) who have completed at least two chemotherapies. Whether histological subtypes and treatment lines affect the efficacy and safety of eribulin for patients with STS has yet to be elucidated. The current study retrospectively reviewed patients with STS receiving eribulin at the Cancer Institute Hospital of JFCR and evaluated the prognostic factors affecting its efficacy and safety by histological diagnoses and treatment lines. A total of 41 patients with STS, including 26 with L-sarcoma, underwent eribulin treatment. Additionally, a total of and 14 patients, including 12 with L-sarcoma, received eribulin as a second-line treatment. The results revealed that patients with L-sarcoma demonstrated longer progression-free survival (PFS) rates compared with patients without L-sarcoma (4.5 vs. 2.3 months; P=0.005). Furthermore, differences in treatment line significantly affected PFS (4.5 months in second-line treatment vs. 2.4 months in later lines; P=0.037). A high number of patients with L-sarcoma received eribulin as a second-line treatment. Regarding safety, several adverse events were reported, such as neutropenia, which were more frequently observed in patients with L-sarcoma or other patients receiving eribulin as a second-line treatment. However, most adverse events were tolerable. The clinical efficacy of eribulin was increased in patients with L-sarcoma, which was similar to previous clinical trials. However, treatment lines could also affect its efficacy. When evaluating the clinical value of eribulin to STS, it is important to consider treatment lines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.